wrote:‘Star Trek 4’: S.J. Clarkson Becomes the First Female Director in Franchise’s History

S.J. Clarkson has been tapped to direct “Star Trek 4,” making her the first female to helm a film in the “Star Trek” franchise.

Paramount Pictures had no comment. The studio announced at CinemaCon in Las Vegas that it was planning a fourth movie with Chris Hemsworth, who appeared as Chris Pine’s father in 2009’s “Star Trek.” Zachary Quinto is also set to return. Paramount is developing another “Star Trek” film from J.J. Abrams and Quentin Tarantino, but sources say it is still being written and would come after the fourth movie.

While details on “Star Trek 4” are vague, sources say a key plot point sees Pine’s character running into his father (Hemsworth) in a time travel ploy.

J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay penned the screenplay. Abrams and Lindsey Weber will produce through Bad Robot Productions, while David Ellison and Dana Goldberg of Skydance Media will executive produce.

The original 2009 reboot “Star Trek” earned $385 million worldwide, while its sequel “Star Trek: Into Darkness” made $467 million globally in 2013. The third, “Star Trek Beyond,” brought in $343 million worldwide in 2016.

Clarkson is best known for her work on the TV scene with shows such as “Dexter,” “Bates Motel,” “Orange is the New Black,” and “Jessica Jones.” She recently directed a handful of episodes for Marvel’s “The Defenders.”

Their headline is slightly misleading since the TV show's have had female directors I'm sure.

Still good to have a little information about the film and to know it might still be happening since Beyond sadly underperformed. I had no idea they'd all grossed quite that low though and I'm sad Simon Pegg isn't on writing duty again,

To the brave passengers and crew of the Kobayashi Maru... sucks to be you - Peter David

The Star Trek Facebook page naturally is (or was when last I checked) chock-full of men whining about how its "political" and "they should just hire the best person, not hire someone because they're a woman"- note the assumption that she was hired only for her gender and not her ability, an assumption made literally every time a woman is given a major role in film or television that traditionally belonged to a man.

Really, the only way you can take it is that they believe that a woman could not possibly have got the job based on merit, and that hiring one woman to thirteen men is an intolerable threat to their (small and fragile) manhoods.

The only somewhat valid complaint I've seen is that her prior resume as a director is entirely in television, with no prior film experience. But her television experience is very extensive (including extensive experience working on SF shows), and I've seen first time film directors who have delivered solid gold (Whedon on Serenity comes to mind), so I'm not too worried.

I am a little disappointed if this means that Tarantino Trek isn't happening, though. I admit, I was curious.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

I think Tarantino Trek is still on and they have two projects on the go. Tarantino's is its own thing continuity wise iirc not prime or kelvin.

That's probably a really good call. I'm glad to hear it. Let Tarantino be Tarantino, without trying to fit it into existing an existing continuity. Especially since this is already a setting where its established the numerous alternate timelines exist.

Its a truth of fandom no decision can be made without someone complaining about it for good reasons or bad.

Indeed.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

If they felt the need to point out "first female to direct a Trek film" in the title, yeah I think they're trying to make a political point. I'm not going to whine about it on Facebook, but it does annoy me -- particularly because Trek has long given writing and directing opportunities to men and women of all races and whatnot (I can't say they're true meritocrats, though, because Braga and Biller kept their jobs for a long time). If Clarkson's worth her salt her work will speak for itself.

I can't say that I'm all that excited -- the first two Kelvin movies were meh, and I didn't even bother to watch "Beyond". It's a shame, since they did a great job with casting, but the writing and other weird changes to the universe let them down.

The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman

If they felt the need to point out "first female to direct a Trek film" in the title, yeah I think they're trying to make a political point.

Maybe, but then I would ask what's actually wrong with making that point. Remember: pretty much no one is actually non-political, or wants their shows to be. Inevitably so, since absolutely anything can have political implications. In my experience, when people complain about how "it shouldn't be political", what they really mean, consciously or unconsciously, is generally "I don't want it to express a political viewpoint that I disagree with."

If they're just doing this to cash on "we hired a woman", then yes, that's irksome. But its going to be mentioned anyway, whether they do or not.

And of course, the fact that they mention she's the first woman does not in any case mean that they picked her simply for her gender, rather than for merit- which is the assumption I am objecting to.

I'm not going to whine about it on Facebook, but it does annoy me -- particularly because Trek has long given writing and directing opportunities to men and women of all races and whatnot (I can't say they're true meritocrats, though, because Braga and Biller kept their jobs for a long time). If Clarkson's worth her salt her work will speak for itself.

Star Trek's record here is... somewhat mixed.

I can't say that I'm all that excited -- the first two Kelvin movies were meh, and I didn't even bother to watch "Beyond". It's a shame, since they did a great job with casting, but the writing and other weird changes to the universe let them down.

I missed Beyond, but not by choice- I simply wasn't able to get around to seeing it.

I mostly enjoyed Star Trek 2009, despite the large plot contrivances and the asshole Kirk. Mostly on the strength of Zarchary Quinto as Spock and Bruce Greenwood as Pike, though I also enjoyed much of the visuals and musical score, loved the opening scene, and respect them for having the guts to destroy Vulcan, upping the stakes and making the new universe genuinely different from the old one.

Into Darkness was a very flawed film, yes. It had a few good moments, like Spock chasing down Kahn at the end, but between being largely a weaker Wrath of Kahn rehash, the 9/11 Truther undertones (one of the writers is a known Truther), the whitewashed Kahn, and general drift back towards the franchise status quo... yeah. Its... watchable. Mediocre entertainment, if you're somewhat generous.

It was too much what a reboot should not be- a lazy retreading of old ground.

Edit: Into Darkness does have the distinction of being Leonard Nimoy's last appearance on-screen, I believe. Shame it wasn't in a better movie.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

I think part of the reason there's such an apparent flurry of political-correctness-run-amok doom-saying after one of these announcements is that the coverage is pretty much always along the lines of "First [minority] [gender] [job] picked for [series]! A basic summary of the series to date, which you already knew because you don't live under a rock. Cursory overview of [person's] career, with no contextualizing details to indicate what that means for their expected performance in this specific role." There's absolutely nothing else in that sort of statement worth responding to besides the person's gender and/or race, so nobody responds who isn't responding to that specific thing. Oversampling of partisans from one side or another.

I suspect if the coverage formula was more like "[Person], known for their work with [x,y, and z projects], has been named for [job] in [series], with these potential implications for [quality/theme of movie]," i.e. the bits the vast majority of potential respondents actually care about, things would look quite different.

“Heroes are heroes because they are heroic in behavior, not because they won or lost.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb

I think part of the reason there's such an apparent flurry of political-correctness-run-amok doom-saying after one of these announcements is that the coverage is pretty much always along the lines of "First [minority] [gender] [job] picked for [series]! A basic summary of the series to date, which you already knew because you don't live under a rock. Cursory overview of [person's] career, with no contextualizing details to indicate what that means for their expected performance in this specific role." There's absolutely nothing else in that sort of statement worth responding to besides the person's gender and/or race, so nobody responds who isn't responding to that specific thing. Oversampling of partisans from one side or another.

I suspect if the coverage formula was more like "[Person], known for their work with [x,y, and z projects], has been named for [job] in [series], with these potential implications for [quality/theme of movie]," i.e. the bits the vast majority of potential respondents actually care about, things would look quite different.

I agree. I think the problem is too many news outlets and perhaps studios themselves are a little too keen to hype up these decisions as a sign of how progressive they are. There's a Guardian article I posted a while back that basically argues this is really counter-productive. These type of news becomes more of a marketing ploy than anything else.

Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

I think part of the reason there's such an apparent flurry of political-correctness-run-amok doom-saying after one of these announcements is that the coverage is pretty much always along the lines of "First [minority] [gender] [job] picked for [series]! A basic summary of the series to date, which you already knew because you don't live under a rock. Cursory overview of [person's] career, with no contextualizing details to indicate what that means for their expected performance in this specific role." There's absolutely nothing else in that sort of statement worth responding to besides the person's gender and/or race, so nobody responds who isn't responding to that specific thing. Oversampling of partisans from one side or another.

I suspect if the coverage formula was more like "[Person], known for their work with [x,y, and z projects], has been named for [job] in [series], with these potential implications for [quality/theme of movie]," i.e. the bits the vast majority of potential respondents actually care about, things would look quite different.

I agree. I think the problem is too many news outlets and perhaps studios themselves are a little too keen to hype up these decisions as a sign of how progressive they are. There's a Guardian article I posted a while back that basically argues this is really counter-productive. These type of news becomes more of a marketing ploy than anything else.

In what way does a brief acknowledgement of the fact that they hired a female director harm anyone (who isn't deeply insecure about their manhood)? I mean, I know people tend not to like feeling that they're having a message pushed on them, even if its one they'd agree with, but it honestly seems a bit petty to me.

Yeah, its tacky if they're using it as a marketing gimmick, but let's not fool ourselves: corporations rarely do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts. But they can sometimes be enticed to do the right thing if there's positive PR/money in it.

Haven't read the Guardian piece, though. I usually find them fairly reliable, so that's something I might want to look into.

Edit: I mean... look at it this way. You've got a group of people who, despite comprising (in the case of women) a majority of the human race, have spent basically all of human history being treated as anything from second class citizens to sexual property, and they're finally getting something vaguely approaching equal time in the spotlight... and then people say basically: "Well, I'm okay with them getting the job, as long as I don't have to hear about it."

Like I said, petty.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

In what way does a brief acknowledgement of the fact that they hired a female director harm anyone (who isn't deeply insecure about their manhood)? I mean, I know people tend not to like feeling that they're having a message pushed on them, even if its one they'd agree with, but it honestly seems a bit petty to me.

Except news outlets are making it more of a bigger fuss than it really needs to be.

Yeah, its tacky if they're using it as a marketing gimmick, but let's not fool ourselves: corporations rarely do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts. But they can sometimes be enticed to do the right thing if there's positive PR/money in it.

Haven't read the Guardian piece, though. I usually find them fairly reliable, so that's something I might want to look into.

Edit: I mean... look at it this way. You've got a group of people who, despite comprising (in the case of women) a majority of the human race, have spent basically all of human history being treated as anything from second class citizens to sexual property, and they're finally getting something vaguely approaching equal time in the spotlight... and then people say basically: "Well, I'm okay with them getting the job, as long as I don't have to hear about it."

Basically, the argument is trying to turn everything into a big fanfare is counter-productive in the long run.

Maybe, maybe not. But if that is the case, and if its because the only way people will accept progress for women or minorities is if they don't have to hear about it... well, there may be a pragmatic argument for it, but it still sucks.

I'm also skeptical that prejudice can be successfully opposed by tip-toing around it, or that prejudice will become less virulent when appeased, in general.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

Except news outlets are making it more of a bigger fuss than it really needs to be.

Perhaps, but:

1) That's not really the fault of the people behind the actual decision.

2) Like I said, its petty to begrudge people some celebration of some long-overdue progress towards equality.

It's counter-productive because it undermines minority being hired for the job. You're downplaying their abilities and accomplishments.

Maybe, maybe not. But if that is the case, and if its because the only way people will accept progress for women or minorities is if they don't have to hear about it... well, there may be a pragmatic argument for it, but it still sucks.

I'm also skeptical that prejudice can be successfully opposed by tip-toing around it, or that prejudice will become less virulent when appeased, in general.

We can't make judgments based on how happy it makes us feel. They should be boring and mundane, and that's the thing that really sticks in the long run. The more boring they are, the more entrenched they will be.

Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

It's counter-productive because it undermines minority being hired for the job. You're downplaying their abilities and accomplishments.

That's an interesting argument, but I don't think acknowledging or celebrating the fact that progress is being made on diversity in hiring is automatically downplaying the individuals' abilities and accomplishments- rather, that its a question of how its presented.

We can't make judgments based on how happy it makes us feel. They should be boring and mundane, and that's the thing that really sticks in the long run. The more boring they are, the more entrenched they will be.

Well, yes. But at the same time, its not really my place to say "You shouldn't celebrate this milestone in trying to achieve equality."

I think you have to sometimes be confrontation early on, but that over time, as there are fewer and fewer "firsts" and more and more seconds, thirds, tenths, etc., it will become routine regardless. Hopefully. But that's just my guess.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

That's an interesting argument, but I don't think acknowledging or celebrating the fact that progress is being made on diversity in hiring is automatically downplaying the individuals' abilities and accomplishments- rather, that its a question of how its presented.

Is news sources the way to celebrate something? The presentation is a problem because it makes it look like they are so keen on hiring a minority that they are overlooking her previous accomplishments.

Well, yes. But at the same time, its not really my place to say "You shouldn't celebrate this milestone in trying to achieve equality."

I think you have to sometimes be confrontation early on, but that over time, as there are fewer and fewer "firsts" and more and more seconds, thirds, tenths, etc., it will become routine regardless. Hopefully. But that's just my guess.

There are a time and place to do that. I don't think news sources are a good place to do this. Because this feels far more self-congratulatory than making a genuine effort to make sure this kind of stuff can become normalised.

Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

Are you saying we can't be happy about even small milestones? Surely a brief expression of 'hey they got a female director, that's cool, about time' is hardly a paradigm shift, but an acknowledgement of long-awaited change, rather?

Are you saying we can't be happy about even small milestones? Surely a brief expression of 'hey they got a female director, that's cool, about time' is hardly a paradigm shift, but an acknowledgement of long-awaited change, rather?

Happy? sure. That's not the job of news outlet. Let her own identity and resume speak for herself. If you put a picture of the director on the news outlet, do you really need to remind everyone she's a woman? It's pretty obvious and anyone who is interested in her being the first woman director of Star Trek can easily find out on Wikipedia and fan forums.

Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

In what way does a brief acknowledgement of the fact that they hired a female director harm anyone (who isn't deeply insecure about their manhood)? I mean, I know people tend not to like feeling that they're having a message pushed on them, even if its one they'd agree with, but it honestly seems a bit petty to me.

Obviously it doesn't "harm"anyone who isn't a cartoonishly awful person. That's not the point - the point is that there's nothing in these stories to engage with unless you're a cartoonishly awful person. There are no possible responses to "Minority Person Gets Job" stories besides "how dare they get that job" or "neat, minority person got job." The vast majority of fans of [series] don't give one single crap about who the director is, except insofar as it impacts [series]; why not run a story that lets people besides identity-politics partisans on one side or the other engage with it?

Yeah, its tacky if they're using it as a marketing gimmick, but let's not fool ourselves: corporations rarely do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts. But they can sometimes be enticed to do the right thing if there's positive PR/money in it.

I think I need to quibble a bit - corporations are not motivated by morality, at all. They're imaginary constructs that exist to generate profits, period. Since the way these sorts of hiring decisions are reported dramatically overselects for the cartoonishly-awful-human-being set in the comments, I worry that it'll end up making them look way more controversial than they actually are, and corporations will stop hiring minorities for high-profile jobs as soon as the current fervor dies down.

Edit: I mean... look at it this way. You've got a group of people who, despite comprising (in the case of women) a majority of the human race, have spent basically all of human history being treated as anything from second class citizens to sexual property, and they're finally getting something vaguely approaching equal time in the spotlight... and then people say basically: "Well, I'm okay with them getting the job, as long as I don't have to hear about it."

Like I said, petty.

The point is not 'don't tell me when a woman gets a job,' it's 'okay, but what does that actually mean for the franchise?' Say, I don't know, "Experienced TV Director Named for STIV," and write a story about the actual cool things she's actually accomplished and how those might translate into making a better film, rather than going "look how progressive Paramount wants us to think they are!" I mean, seriously, Clarkson gets six lines of coverage (on my screen) in this story where her name is literally in the title, and one of those is about who her agents are. Surely there's more to be said here.

“Heroes are heroes because they are heroic in behavior, not because they won or lost.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Happy? sure. That's not the job of news outlet. Let her own identity and resume speak for herself. If you put a picture of the director on the news outlet, do you really need to remind everyone she's a woman? It's pretty obvious and anyone who is interested in her being the first woman director of Star Trek can easily find out on Wikipedia and fan forums.

Don't be daft. The job of a news outlet is to sell their product. And the best way to sell their product is to attach some weight and significance to it, not to simply spam out dry press releases about which companies hired which people without any context.

And it's ironic you appeal to Wikipedia here, because you are the one implicitly making the argument that you think news outlets should be MORE like Wikipedia, by refraining from editorializing and simply reporting lists of facts and figures. Plainly speaking, that isn't and never has been the job of a news outlet, and it's endlessly naive to expect it to be.

Don't be daft. The job of a news outlet is to sell their product. And the best way to sell their product is to attach some weight and significance to it, not to simply spam out dry press releases about which companies hired which people without any context.

Why should marketing be confused with actual social progress? Cheering the marketing team for trying to market their products is just odd and not really useful. Moreover, cheering a news outlet for basically being the marketing for the new movie is just annoying. We have enough paid advertisement as it is.

And it's ironic you appeal to Wikipedia here, because you are the one implicitly making the argument that you think news outlets should be MORE like Wikipedia, by refraining from editorializing and simply reporting lists of facts and figures. Plainly speaking, that isn't and never has been the job of a news outlet, and it's endlessly naive to expect it to be.

Why shouldn't it be more like wikipedia and be more focused on listing people's accomplishments and so forth?

Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

There is a place for opinion in the news, and I acknowledge it's hard to avoid bias because stories have to be written to the standard of whatever media outlet is releasing them, but ultimately the facts of the stories are what should be most prominent.

To make a quick example, I've gotten frustrated with most liberal news sites lately because they'll report on every little thing Trump/Mueller/Russia, and spin off new narratives about how THIS is going to be the END of Trump. They take a few small facts and opinionate endlessly about where it's going to take Mueller and Trump and whatnot. That's... not really news. That's basically an opinion article built on top of a few facts, which may or may not add up to the result they want.

There's a balance to be struck between providing context and speculating wildly - I, Joe Public, don't know a goddamn thing about the implications of [latest Trumpian nonsense], so having a quote from a lawyer or political operative or whoever to explain what happened and why I should care is entirely appropriate, and, I would say, an essential part of responsible journalism. That said, I totally agree than every Vox article ending with three paragraphs of salivating over [thing]'s potential part in future impeachment proceedings is way beyond that essential contextualizing function.

“Heroes are heroes because they are heroic in behavior, not because they won or lost.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb

There is a place for opinion in the news, and I acknowledge it's hard to avoid bias because stories have to be written to the standard of whatever media outlet is releasing them, but ultimately the facts of the stories are what should be most prominent.

To make a quick example, I've gotten frustrated with most liberal news sites lately because they'll report on every little thing Trump/Mueller/Russia, and spin off new narratives about how THIS is going to be the END of Trump. They take a few small facts and opinionate endlessly about where it's going to take Mueller and Trump and whatnot. That's... not really news. That's basically an opinion article built on top of a few facts, which may or may not add up to the result they want.

See Crazedwraith arguments. No one is disputing the article should give facts. The question is what are the points you want to emphasize. As a news source, not making a big fuss about her being the first woman director of ST movies would have been more effective in communicating the message.

If the news article makes her prior work the primary focus, those against her as the director have to actually make an argument against her prior work and why she is not good enough. This would actually require those objecting to she being hired to actually do some work and critique her previous films/TV episodes.

Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.